Thursday, August 31, 2006

I have a bit of time on my hands at the moment, so I'll continue my thoughts on the responses to me from Kevin Cauley over at the Preacher's Files.

From a previous post:

I'm sure the Jews had "explanations" for why Jesus was wrong about His analysis as well, but the "explanation" only reinforces the point that tradition has been elevated above scripture to begin with. That's exactly what has happened with Catholicism. One such example is the "explanation" that Catholicism offers for why it is acceptable to call religious leaders "fathers" when Jesus clearly said not to do such in Matthew 23:9. Here is a clear conflict between Catholic Tradition and scripture. What has won out? Not scripture, but tradition.

No faithful Catholic will ever say Jesus was wrong, and they will never say the scriptures were wrong. In our understanding, there is no conflict at all. And while your understanding may seem right to you, I have to wonder by what authority you claim your interpretation to be the correct one?

Unfortunately, rather than answer my question about authority, Mr. Cauley decided to jump to another topic altogether and whip out the famous "call no man father" argument.

Matthew 23:8-10 states clearly "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." Why is interpretation even necessary here?

Good question! Because any honest person will admit there are several ways to take this verse if we're just looking at it on the surface. We could take it to mean we should literally never address ANYONE, even our own teachers and parents with such titles, or we could take it in a more figurative way to mean we should not consider anyone to be above God in their position, or we could pick and choose and decide it's ok to call our biological father "father," even though that ignores the "no man...upon the earth" part of that verse, and it's ok to call teachers Master (Mr.), but it's not ok to call priests father. The problem with the last and first options, are that they would themselves contradict other passages in the scriptures where men ARE called fathers and teachers who are not God. And this is why we have the Church, to point us to the correct interpretation of such passages.

You've got it partly right...he's condemning the tendency to raise human beings higher than their place, to raise them even above God. That doesn't mean he's forbidding us to recognize their proper place as spiritual father or teacher.

To read this passage in context and uninfluenced by prejudicial Catholic doctrines, is to understand it, no interpretation necessary.

It doesn't matter how confidently one denies that the bible needs interpretation and can even be a difficult book to read and understand, it still doesn't make it so. Even without the "prejudicial Catholic doctrines," there is still more than one way to understand the verse, and clearly fundamentalists must rely on their own authority to decide which one is correct. And we wonder why there is split upon split upon split in bible-only churches like the CoC.

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative.

Catholics know that public revelation ended with the last apostle’s death. But the part of revelation that was not written down—the part outside the Bible, the apostles’ inspired oral teaching (1 Thess. 2:13) and their binding interpretations of Old Testament Scripture that forms the basis of sacred Tradition—that part of revelation Catholics also accept. Catholics follow Paul’s command: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15, cf. 1 Cor. 11:2).

It is one thing to say that these passages teach that early Christians must believe and observe things which inspired men have directly said (in fact, that's really all they say).

Yes, I was using them (in my very first post) to show that not all tradition was the "tradition of men" and that the apostles commended people for following those traditions and oral teachings.

It's quite another thing to suggest that these passages teach that the church would be guaranteed to infallibly transmit such teachings to their spiritual progeny.

Uummmm...I don't believe I was using these verses to try and show that particular belief. I was simply trying to point out that there was, indeed, oral tradition that was passed on from the apostles. I'm also kind of conused as to why this part was quoted from my very first post in a response to a later post.

These passages simply do not teach that doctrine. Where is the concept of infallibility in these passages on the part of those who heard the word? Where is the promise in these verses that they WILL infallibly preserve oral tradition?

Yeah, I get the point...see above.

What Paul affirms in the above passages is simply the necessity of the first Christians to obey the inspired apostles, but that's all that is affirmed. If God were to directly inspire someone today, a similar obligation would, no doubt, be enjoined.

Agreed!

I'm not disagreeing that the early church didn't have an entire New Testament. I agree that they didn't. But that is exactly why they had inspired apostles and prophets, namely, to directly reveal to them God's will. The New Testament never teaches the doctrine of the infallible preservation of God's word by the church. It's just not there.

Weeelll, I don't know about that. Let's look at what Christ promised His Church in Matthew 28:18-20, and some other verses...

"All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Now it cannot be denied by anyone who admits that Christ established a visible Church at all, and endowed it with any kind of effective teaching authority, that this commission, with all it implies, was given not only to the Apostles personally for their own lifetime, but to their successors to the end of time, "even to the consummation of the world". And assuming that it was the omniscient Son of God Who spoke these words, with a full and clear realization of the import which, in conjunction with His other promises, they were calculated to convey to the Apostles and to all simple and sincere believers to the end of time, the only reasonable interpretation to put upon them is that they contain the promise of infallible guidance in doctrinal teaching made to the Apostolic College in the first instance and then to the hierarchical college that was to succeed it.................................Supposing, as we do, that Christ actually delivered a definite body of revealed truth, to be taught to all men in all ages, and to be guarded from change or corruption by the living voice of His visible Church, it is idle to contend that this result could be accomplished effectively -- in other words that His promise could be effectively fulfilled unless that living voice can speak infallibly to every generation on any question that may arise affecting the substance of Christ's teaching.................................John 14-16. In Christ's discourse to the Apostles at the Last Supper several passages occur which clearly imply the promise of infallibility: "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth . . . he shall abide with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:16, 17). "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (ibid. 26). "But when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth (John 16:13). And the same promise is renewed immediately before the Ascension (Acts 1:8). Now what does the promise of this perennial and efficacious presence and assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, mean in connection with doctrinal authority, except that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is made responsible for what the Apostles and their successors may define to be part of Christ's teaching? But insofar as the Holy Ghost is responsible for Church teaching, that teaching is necessarily infallible: what the Spirit of truth guarantees cannot be false.

It boils down to the fact that Christ instituted His Church, then told that Church to spread the truth, said He would be with them until the end of the world, and promised He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. What good would it be for people to spread the word without some kind of safeguard against error? That would no longer be "all truth," and so it is clear that for the Church to teach all truth, She must be protected from teaching error.

This is exactly what is in contention. I understand that Catholics believe that THEIR tradition is sanctioned by God and thereby NOT human tradition. However, it's one thing to SAY that; it's an entirely different thing to prove that. That's where Catholicism falls far short.

So you say, and I disagree. I agree, one shouldn't just accept such a claim without proof. I've posted the scriptures that I believe show Christ gave the apostles tradition, who passed that on, and expected it to be followed. I haven't seen any scripture saying that scripture alone is sufficient. I have seen historical proof, especially how the Bible came about. I see in the scriptures that a Church was instituted, not a book. I see the Church called "the pillar and ground of truth," not a book. So, personally, I have seen proof, and I have tried to provide explanations of that as best I can.

I believe I've shown in previous posts that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 proves the sufficiency of the scriptures. However, I've not seen any scriptures presented that teach the infallible preservation of the word by the church. Does the church have to infallibly preserve Oral Tradition to be "the pillar and ground of the truth?"

Yes!! Absolutely!! Any organization having less than perfect preservation of truth could not be considered the very pillar and ground of truth!

I don't believe it does. It would be sufficient for the church to preserve written documents to fulfill that function, and so it has.

But then the scriptures would say that the scriptures are the pillar and ground of truth...and they don't say that, they say the Church is. Again, if the Church has anything less than absolute truth, if the Church is vulnerable to teaching error, She can not be the pillar and ground of truth.

I'll agree with you that there was apostolic revelation outside of written revelation in the first century. Where we disagree, however, is that this non-written public revelation was entrusted to the church. It was not. In fact, the main impetus of the early church was to confirm the written revelation and ferret out the oral tradition, just the opposite of what Catholicism claims. Such makes suspect all of Catholic oral tradition.

I don't find this anywhere in the scriptures, quite the opposite.

I simply meant to say that history tells us that in the days after the apostles the primary emphasis in the church was on preserving the inspired writings of the apostles, not upon preserving oral tradition.

Where in the world is there any evidence of that? We agree there was oral tradition in the first century...it seems that if this was meant to be completely committed to the written word, we would see evidence of that somewhere, and a mention that oral tradition was to stop being passed on at some point. But that's simply an assumption that must be made if one is to believe in sola scriptura, it's a case of reading one's beliefs into the text.

Nevertheless, scripture never tells us that the church was guaranteed to infallibly preserve the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Not one passage that has been presented has proved that.

See above. Without infallibility preserving the truth, there could be no certainty of having the truth.

The very fact of the matter is that early in the 2nd century A.D. the written messages of the apostles were already being read as scripture among the churches. We know that they were read as scripture when they were originally delivered to the early churches, for so the writings themselves say (Colossians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:27). It is a myth, however, to say that the 1st and 2nd century churches didn't have the New Testament. Consider "The Formation of the New Testament Canon." History shows that they actually did and that they distinguished such teachings from the mere writings/traditions of men.

By the middle to end of the second century, you actually have writings that are listing the books of the New Testament as being part of the apostles inspired writings. One such example is the Muratorium Fragment. There is little discussion, if any, to authoritative tradition at this time. Why would that be? Mainly because they were not concerned with oral tradition as they were with inspired written documents.

My answer would be because there was no question about what that tradition was, it was very much agreed upon. It was a bit later that major heresies arose (arianism, pelagianism, nestorianism, etc), which challenged Sacred Tradition. Because of the Church's God-give authority, though, they were able to settle the matters. Just like with scriptures, though there were certainly texts they agreed were inspired, there were also arguments over other texts and whether or not they were inspired, and because of the Church's authority, they were able to settle the matter once and for all.

If matters of tradition were settled, then why would they feel the need to preserve the writings of the apostles and prophets at all?

Certainly it was a good thing to preserve BOTH the oral tradition AND the sacred scriptures. That is why we see them as both equally important.

No, the early church had as many problems with major heresies (such as gnosticism) as it did at later times. The solution, however, was not to appeal to oral tradition, but rather to the inspired writings of the apostles and prophets which is exactly what we find them doing.

They appealed to both.

See, for example the writings of Justin Martyr and other early church leaders. They didn't cite Oral Tradition as authoritative; they did, however, cite the inspired writings of the apostles and prophets as authoritative and sufficient to refute the heresies they faced.

Of course he used scripture, but he used oral tradition as well. The problem is, you don't always "cite" oral tradition like you do scripture, it is woven into our beliefs (even those of the CoC), and attached to the scriptures, and the two cannot be separated.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Well according to my last weigh-in, I've lost about 5.2 lbs. YAY! On a not so great note, for the first time in about 2 1/2 weeks, I didn't exercise this week day morning. :-/ My throat has been hurting and I just didn't feel up to it...so I had some hot tea instead. But hopefully, tomorrow I'll be back in the swing of things. I definitely need it after last night's DELICIOUS Bacon Cheeseburger! :-D

Monday, August 28, 2006

I've said that I don't have time to keep up with the discussion I was engaged in at the Preacher's Files forum. The time and effort needed to continually respond there is just not something I can keep up for long, especially because I know there won't ever come a point in time where they will agree to disagree. I also prefer to discuss with people who are a bit less confrontational, and who are willing to practice active listening, with the goal to understand their opponent's POV rather than the goal to prove them wrong. (This, from the ex-CoC discussion board, explains active listening well.) Otherwise, it's much too easy to completely talk past one another, and that accomplishes nothing.

With that in mind, I would like to take a look at the last responses to me from Mr. Cauley. Because of time restraints, I may not answer everything at once, but doing it this way allows me to talk about these issues with no pressure, with the goal in mind to simply explain the Catholic view, not to prove it right or them wrong.

The first topics in need of explanation are Tradition and infallibility. There is obvious confusion on the part of Mr. Cauley when it comes to these things, and this is certainly not surprising, as they are complicated issues. I know "complicated" is probably a dirty word to most CoC members, but it isn't in the Catholic world view. What I do find distressing, however, is to see people, especially non-Catholics, talk as if they understand the whole of Catholic teaching, but then make such inaccurate statements about it that it's obvious they don't. I don't see why there's any need to be afraid of admitting that one doesn't know everything, or even much, about a given belief system. There's no shame in being honest.

Onto the discussion...

In a previous post, I said:

If you can find me an example of a teaching that was once seen as unchangeable, and later was changed, that might help.

See below.

I was quite excited to see this, and eagerly read on...

I have to wonder whether past Catholic doctrines which, at the time were consider big "T" Tradition, were later, after the doctrines were abandoned, decided only to be little "t" traditions. One such example would be the scientific discovery of a heliocentric solar system. The Catholic Church opposed that teaching for many years (and even persecuted some for believing it, such as Galileo) before finally accepting it. Was that not a change in big "T" Tradition?

This is largely an exaggeration that has been perpetuated by people trying to prove that science is incompatible with religion, and that religion tries to stifle science. Suffice it to say, the problem was not the heliocentric theory itself, as Galileo was not the first to propose it, rather, it was the fact that Galileo claimed he had proven it (when he had not), and tried to move it into the theological realm.

But was it a change in Tradition or not?

That's easy enough to answer - no, it was not.

When heliocentricity was finally adopted by the Catholic Church was this not an example of a teaching that was once seen as unchangeable?

Whether it was seen by individuals as unchangeable or not is quite irrelevant, what matters is whether it had been defined formally as an infallible teaching or not. The Church doesn't rule on whether or not scientific theories are true or not, they let scientists handle those questions. They will only touch on science formally when it gets into the theological and/or moral realm. So, no, there was never a formal teaching that geocentricism was correct, nor was there ever a formal teaching that heliocentricism is correct. They leave science up to the scientists.

But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical.

Notice what is highlighted above. It was a universal belief that the letter of Holy Scripture was supreme authority in matters of science. Would we not say that they believed such a teaching to be unchangeable at the time?

Again, a "universal belief" does not mean an infallibly held belief. It was never officially declared that the scriptures were completely and wholly scientifically accurate.

Was not geocentricism the official teaching of the church at that time?

No, it was never a teaching, geocentricism is a scientific theory, not a theological one.

Moreover, what about the literal beliefs that the Catholic church held regarding scripture? Can it be doubted that those beliefs were doctrine at the time?

Certainly the scriptures were often taken literally, the idea that they did not need to be, and in fact shouldn't be in some places had not yet developed. At that point in time, there was no reason to doubt that the scriptures were literal...until science showed otherwise. But again, this was never formally defined one way or the other.

This is again a misunderstanding of how the Church works. It is not relatively recently that this idea came about in the Church, it has been a long held belief that when confronted with apparent contradiction between science and scriptures, we should perhaps amend our understanding of scripture rather than ignore the science. In fact, St. Augustine had this to say in the early fifth century:

In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture....................Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world...and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn....Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

So it is not true that this is brand new, though admittedly St. Augustine was a bit ahead of his time. It is simply necessary for the Church to be clear on their stance on this issue now because of the climate in which we live, namely, one where there are fundamentalist and literalist Christians all around.

And this demonstrates how the Church works. Often, an issue is not formally defined or declared until and unless that issue is challenged. Until then, there are often several acceptable theological possibilities. It is only once something has been formally defined that Catholics are bound to that specific definition.

So, while I understand that Catholicism teaches that their "Tradition" never changes, it is really a clever ruse. What they really are saying is that if "Tradition" is ever proved to be wrong, then it must never have been part of "Tradition." Additionally, if Catholicism decides to accept a new doctrine, they can simply proclaim that it was always part of their "Tradition" even though it started as a "tradition." In that way, "Tradition" never changes, but it does so by definition, not by factuality. That is to say, Catholicism defines "Tradition" as "never changing doctrine" and thus, if a doctrine changes it either wasn't "Tradition" to begin with or it always was depending upon the change. This is the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

Again, you may find it "convenient," but you haven't shown an proof that it is begging the question.

Here's the proof.

Alright, let's get to the good stuff!

Catholic Tradition is said to be infallible. The doctrine of infallibility, however, is explained in terms of the infallibility of either 1) The Pope or 2) The teaching office of the Catholic church. But what happens when either the Pope or the teaching office of the church are historically shown to be mistaken?

I don't believe they CAN be shown to be historically mistaken, not within the perameters that have been set to distinguish which teachings have been declared infallibly, and which have not. Not everything the pope says is assumed to be infallible, even if it's an encyclical or other writing. There are relatively few instances where the charism of infallibility is necessary, it is mostly when trying to dispel incorrect teaching which is cropping up and to guard against heresy.

Whatever the mistake is, it is pronounced to be an obvious example of a mistake on some individual's part, but never on the part of the church as a whole or the Catholic Tradition, even though said Tradition is supposed to be kept infallible by the Pope and the teaching office of the church.

True, but this is not because we go about it in a backwards way as implied. We don't say, "Oh, it changed, therefore it must not be infallible." In other words, infallibility is not assumed unless proven otherwise. It's quite the opposite...while we take all Church teaching (whether it's been infallibly declared or not) as authoritative, something is only considered infallible if it has been declared ex cathedra by the pope, or if it has been decided upon by an ecumenical council. So often, the things that are pointed out in an attempt to disprove infallibility are things which the Catholic Church does not claim to be infallible in the first place.

So, by definition, neither the church nor the Pope are allowed to make errors in matters of Church Tradition.

Right, WHEN they are formally defining a matter pertaining to faith or morals.

So, in that way, Church Tradition never changes; by definition it's not allowed to. That assumes what must be proved.

And this conclusion has been incorrectly reached because this assumes an inaccurate understanding of what falls under infallibility.

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Here's another example. Pope Gelasius I said regarding the Eucharist in a work titled "De Duabus Naturis":

The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.

How do current Catholic apologists handle this obvious contradiction to the doctrine of Transubstantiation? In essence, they say he simply made an error. As in this such example. But why didn't the doctrine of infallibility kick in and keep the Pope from saying such?

Because he was not attempting to define something infallibly. In fact, this mention of the Eucharist is in passing within a piece of writing which has a completely different purpose than to talk of the Eucharist. The work is focused on the divinity of Christ, not the Eucharist. Why does that matter? Because we should not use a fleeting mention of something as a proof of what they do or don't believe on the matter. It's much better to look at writings that have to do specifically with the subject at hand.

Why didn't it prevent him from contradicting the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Once again, firstly because he was not trying to define anything formally, and so infallibility does not apply here, and secondly because the Church was still developing their theological terms, and had not yet defined transubstantiation. As I mentioned previously, until something was defined, it was acceptable to have differing theological views (within reason). In this case, whether the Eucharist was transubstantiated or consubstantiated had yet to be defined, so he was perfectly within his rights to say what he did. And that's assuming he held a firm belief one way or the other...in actuality, it's much more likely he was just using making a passing comment on the Eucharist without much thought to the language being used.

The link provided by Mr. Cauley explains all of this, but perhaps he didn't read it thoroughly.

That's my point. If "infallibility" can't protect the Pope from saying such things, then it, as a doctrine, is meaningless.

Not if one actually looks at what the doctrine professes to be instead of making incorrect assumptions about it. Infallibility never claims to protect the pope in all his writings, nor to reach backwards in time before something has been defined and protect any previous writings. As Vatican II explains, it is simply a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when... he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

Hence, whenever someone shows an obvious contradiction of doctrine in the Catholic church, it is automatically dismissed as NOT being part of Catholic Tradition.

That's because it IS not part of the infallibly defined Tradition. Try to see if there is anything that everyone agrees has been formally defined and is an infallible teaching that has ever changed. There is no such thing.

If such things are assumed, then there is no way to prove that Catholic Tradition has changed. Hence, it is unchangable by definition, not by historical verifiability and that is why I say it is begging the question.

And I hope it is apparent why the conclusions reached here have been reached incorrectly because of a misunderstanding of what the Church teaches regarding infallibility and Tradition.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

One of the most problematic attitudes common among CoC members is arrogance. It's easy, when talking to people who come off as arrogant, to become upset easily and react. When we run into pride, our automatic response is often more pride, we certainly don't want to come off as looking "less than" someone else who is puffing themselves up. But of course, that's the worst possible reaction, as it only results in a battle of pride.

Still, it's not always easy to remain humble when we should. One thing that helps me to try to keep my pride in check when speaking with CoC members who come off as arrogant is to remember my own arrogance when I was CoC, and to know I was that way because of what I had been taught. The very teaching about the sincerity of others (or lack thereof), if one believes it, can only result in apparent arrogance to non-CoC members.

If one asks a CoC member how they know that their interpretation of the scriptures is the correct one, and if they believe they are inerrant in that interpretation, certainly most CoC members, in a kind of attempt at humility will say, "It is not I, but the simple words of the Bible that are inerrant, I only read them and glean the truth from them." The problem is, anyone who has read the Bible knows it is not always the easiest thing to understand, and also knows one can't help but interpret it in some way. (After all, one of the clearest teachings, I think, is Christ telling us "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed," and yet this is somehow understood to be symbolic according to the CoC.) In this denial of responsibility for the extrapolation of their beliefs, there is an undeniable implication that anyone else who doesn't come to the same understanding of the scriptures is either incredibly stupid or insincere in their search for truth. The more common belief is the latter, as it is a strongly held belief that the Bible is simple enough for anybody to understand. Most CoC members will say that if people truly and honestly search the scriptures, they will come to the CoC understanding of them, and many of them really and truly believe this, I certainly did! They conclude, therefore, that the whole of Christianity (that is, those outside the Churches of Christ) is just not sincere enough in their efforts to seek truth, rather than acknowledging that the Bible is not as "simple" to understand as they would like to believe, and this comes off as rather arrogant. When children are taught to assume ill intentions, or less than sincere intentions when someone disagrees with you, it can only result in astounding arrogance.

But despite this arrogance, I can't help but remind myself that I was once in their shoes, and I really didn't know better, and so I must give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm fortunate to have insight into the mindset having grown up in it, which allows me to have a little more patience than someone who didn't. It is absolutely necessary for CoC "theology" (if we could call it that) for the Bible to be transparent and completely understandable. Without this, the claim cannot be made that any old person off the street can read the Bible (with a sincere heart) and correctly determine what he must do to be saved. And without this claim, the frightening reality would be too much to bear...if the Bible is in any way difficult to understand, how could one ever be sure that his understanding of the Bible was correct? Especially if equally sincere people came to differing conclusions!? It certainly is a scary thought that the Bible would be anything less than "plain and simple" if you believe God handed us a book and expected each individual to figure things out for himself...but this fear keeps them from acknowledging their arrogant manner. Rather than admit that the Bible is not always easily understood, which would result in doubt and uneasiness, they prefer to believe those who don't come to the same conclusions just aren't sincere enough. It's a kind of self preservation tactic, without which they would not have any reason to believe their interpretation of scripture is any more correct than another.

And that is why my first step out of the CoC was realizing that there were truly honest and sincere people out there earnestly seeking truth who were not CoC. Once I crossed that bridge, my whole belief system began to unravel. And so I continue to remind myself, when speaking with CoC members who are coming off as arrogant, that they feel they must assume people who don't reach the same conclusions as they do are insincere, because their house of cards is so delicately stacked that to face the reality would certainly cause them to come tumbling down. And that is not an easy thing to face...so we must be understanding and kind, even when faced with attitudes that are less-than-respectful of our own beliefs. Trying to fight pride with pride will never help them see the corner they have painted themselves into, it is better to try and be an example of humility as Christ was to us, and to pray that they grow closer to Christ in their journey.

Learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. - Matthew 11:29

Friday, August 25, 2006

Mr. Cauley responded to my part 2 and 3 responses, and this is my final response to both of those. The full discussion can be seen here.

Kevin Cauley wrote:While Stephanie has indicated that she does not want to debate, and I am not going to require it of her in this discussion. My desire is to respond to the things that she is saying and so I have done.

Thank you!

I hope you don't mind if I set aside the issue of miracles for now, in consideration of saving time, as I think it's rather a side issue, and I'd like to try to focus on the main point.

Perhaps you could give us some scriptural evidence for this analysis. I would like to know the passages of scripture that teach the "reception of the Holy Spirit" for 1) ordination, and 2) confirmation. Would you supply them?

I will do my best. Keep in mind, because we have Tradition along side Scripture, we don't expect Scripture to be a manual that goes into detail about such things. Rather, we expect Scripture to mention things in passing, as it would be expected that people of the time would know what was being referred to. So, there's not a verse that says "This is confirmation, and this is how you do it," because it was simply not seen as necessary. But there are mentions of it.

We read in the Acts of the Apostles (viii, 14-17) that after the Samaritan converts had been baptized by Philip the deacon, the Apostles "sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for he was not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost". Again (xix, 1-6): St. Paul "came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance . . . Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied". From these two passages we learn that in the earliest ages of the Church there was a rite, distinct from baptism, in which the Holy Ghost was conferred by the imposition of hands (dia tes epitheseos ton cheiron ton Apostolon), and that the power to perform this ceremony was not implied in the power to baptize... A striking passage, which was made much use of by the Fathers and the Schoolmen, is that of St. Paul: "He that confirmeth [ho de bebaion] us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God, who also hath sealed [sphragisamenos] us, and given us the pledge [arrabona] of the Spirit in our hearts" (2 Corinthians 1:20, 21). No mention is made of any particular words accompanying the imposition of hands on either of the occasions on which the ceremony is described; but as the act of imposing hands was performed for various purposes, some prayer indicating the special purpose may have been used: "Peter and John . . . prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost". Further, such expressions as "signing" and "sealing" may be taken as referring to the character impressed by the sacrament: "You were signed [esphragisthete] with the holy Spirit of promise"; "Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed [esphragisthete] unto the day of redemption" (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30). See also the passage from II Cor. quoted above. Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi, 1-4) the writer reproaches those whom he addresses for falling back into their primitive imperfect knowledge of Christian truth; "whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God" (Hebrews 5:12). He exhorts them: "leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation . . . of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands", and speaks of them as those who have been "once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost". It is clear that reference is made here to the ceremony of Christian initiation: baptism and the imposition of hands whereby the Holy Ghost was conferred, just as in Acts, ii, 38. The ceremony is considered to be so well known to the faithful that no further description is necessary.

From the beginning the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate were conferred with special rites and ceremonies. Though in the course of time there was considerable development and diversity in different parts of the Church, the imposition of hands and prayer were always and universally employed and date from Apostolic times (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6).

Our disagreement isn't whether the apostles taught orally by inspiration. There's no dispute about that. The disagreement is in whether or not there was an apostolic expectation that oral tradition be preserved as authoritative. I teach that the only "tradition" that can be trusted is the written tradition. Catholicism teaches otherwise.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, you're quite right.

Catholicism draws a line between the process of inspiriation and the process of the divine preservation of tradition. See the Catechism on this point. The Catholic church doesn't claim that tradition has been divinely inspired as were the apostles and prophets. Catholicism believes that the preservation of tradition is a work of the Holy Spirit, not so much in inspiring someone to speak or write truth, but by guaranteeing (somehow) that the church never loses truth.

Yes, you are right about that. Let me clarify further...we believe the Church, when officially teaching on a matter of faith or morals, is infallible. This touches on the difference between what this means as opposed to inspiration and revelation:

Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.

Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.

Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.

So, we believe the writers of the texts of the bible were directly inspired. We believe the apostles were given revelation and inspired to write much of it down. We believe that the Church today, in her teaching capacity, is infallible.

When we look at scripture, it's clear that when God wanted to communicate His will, He did so by inspiration (i.e. "Thus saith the Lord"), not tradition (2 Peter 1:20-21).

This verse only discusses prophecy in the Old Testament, and says that it is not for private interpretation, and that it came from God. This does not negate the possibility of there being ways for God to protect His Truth once given, because it is not speaking of that.

This makes the entire process of preservation of oral tradition suspect because it isn't backed by the very breath of God through the process of inspiration. Now, if it isn't by inspiration, then what authority does it have?

We believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church and we believe her teachings are infallible. Not newly inspired, because God has already given us His teachings through revelation and Christ's oral teachings, and they were written down (and inerrant) because of inspiration. Now the job of the Church is not to create new teachings, but to protect those already given from error. It is a different function and a different purpose than what inspiration and revelation were for.

In Galatians 1:8-12, Paul makes it clear that the gospel he preached was received by inspired revelation. It didn't come to him through human teaching of any kind (inspired or otherwise).

Agreed!

This sets directly inspired scripture above any effort that uninspired men make to teach and preach the gospel.

And this is where I believe you're missing infallibility. To a point, you must believe in infallibility yourself...otherwise, you would never trust that you knew God's truth better than a Baptist or a Methodist or any flavor of Protestant. (I use Protestantism as they, like you, claim the Bible as their only authority.) How do you know your interpretation is any more correct than theirs? Certainly you earnestly search the word and study it diligently, but so, too, do many Protestants. On some level, you must believe that you have somehow been guided into truth, while they have not...in other words, you must believe your interpretation is correct, inerrant, and infallible.

Again, you seem to have the understanding that because the Catholic Church says men in the Church today are not inspired, then the Holy Spirit must not be involved. But you're forgetting that we believe in a separate and distinct function of the Holy Spirit, and that is the charism of infallibility.

And there is a real sense in which Catholicism acknowledges the necessity of men (uninspired mortal men) to transmit apostolic oral tradition. Now, the question that the above scriptures address is this: do men have within themselves the ability to ratify divine truth? Catholicism says they must. These scriptures, however, teach otherwise. Man does not have it within himself to ratify divine truth.

Here you are mistaken. Catholicism says it is not just them, it is their own words, but words that are kept from error by the Holy...not in the sense of inspiration, not in a positive manner, in a negative manner, keeping them from teaching error.

*that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;

*that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;

*and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.

If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 18:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents. It is, therefore, a mere waste of time for opponents of infallibility to try to create a prejudice against the Catholic claim by pointing out the moral or intellectual shortcomings of popes or councils that have pronounced definitive doctrinal decisions, or to try to show historically that such decisions in certain cases were the seemingly natural and inevitable outcome of existing conditions, moral, intellectual, and political. All that history may be fairly claimed as witnessing to under either of these heads may freely be granted without the substance of the Catholic claim being affected.

Now, let me show you where in scripture we believe Christ promises such a thing to His Church.

Merely remarking for the present that the texts in which Christ promised infallible guidance especially to Peter and his successors in the primacy might be appealed to here as possessing an a fortiori value, it will suffice to consider the classical texts usually employed in the general proof of the Church's infallibility; and of these the principal are:

I just want to focus on a couple verses in this post, but there are explanations of all of them and why we believe they support infallibility of the Church here.

Matthew 28:18-20

In Matthew 28:18-20, we have Christ's solemn commission to the Apostles delivered shortly before His Ascension: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." In Mark 16:15-16, the same commission is given more briefly with the added promise of salvation to believers and the threat of damnation for unbelievers; "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Now it cannot be denied by anyone who admits that Christ established a visible Church at all, and endowed it with any kind of effective teaching authority, that this commission, with all it implies, was given not only to the Apostles personally for their own lifetime, but to their successors to the end of time, "even to the consummation of the world". And assuming that it was the omniscient Son of God Who spoke these words, with a full and clear realization of the import which, in conjunction with His other promises, they were calculated to convey to the Apostles and to all simple and sincere believers to the end of time, the only reasonable interpretation to put upon them is that they contain the promise of infallible guidance in doctrinal teaching made to the Apostolic College in the first instance and then to the hierarchical college that was to succeed it.

In the first place it was not without reason that Christ prefaced His commission by appealing to the fullness of power He Himself had received: "All power is given to me", etc. This is evidently intended to emphasize the extraordinary character and extent of the authority He is communicating to His Church -- an authority, it is implied, which He could not personally communicate were not He Himself omnipotent. Hence the promise that follows cannot reasonably be understood of ordinary natural providential guidance, but must refer to a very special supernatural assistance.

In the next place there is question particularly in this passage of doctrinal authority -- of authority to teach the Gospel to all men -- if Christ's promise to be with the Apostles and their successors to the end of time in carrying out this commission means that those whom they are to teach in His name and according to the plenitude of the power He has given them are bound to receive that teaching as if it were His own; in other words they are bound to accept it as infallible. Otherwise the perennial assistance promised would not really be efficacious for its purpose, and efficacious Divine assistance is what the expression used is clearly intended to signify. Supposing, as we do, that Christ actually delivered a definite body of revealed truth, to be taught to all men in all ages, and to be guarded from change or corruption by the living voice of His visible Church, it is idle to contend that this result could be accomplished effectively -- in other words that His promise could be effectively fulfilled unless that living voice can speak infallibly to every generation on any question that may arise affecting the substance of Christ's teaching......One may not appeal to the inspired authority of the Scriptures, since for the fact of their inspiration the authority of the Church must be invoked, and unless she be infallible in deciding this one would be free to question the inspiration of any of the New Testament writings.

John 14-16

In Christ's discourse to the Apostles at the Last Supper several passages occur which clearly imply the promise of infallibility: "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth . . . he shall abide with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:16, 17). "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (ibid. 26). "But when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth (John 16:13). And the same promise is renewed immediately before the Ascension (Acts 1:8). Now what does the promise of this perennial and efficacious presence and assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, mean in connection with doctrinal authority, except that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is made responsible for what the Apostles and their successors may define to be part of Christ's teaching? But insofar as the Holy Ghost is responsible for Church teaching, that teaching is necessarily infallible: what the Spirit of truth guarantees cannot be false.

It certainly is! However, it is a law that can change. It does not profess to be unchangeable, it is merely disciplinary.

So the Holy Orders of the Catholic church is not a doctrine, but a discipline? That would be a new one on me. The Catholic Encyclopedia makes it clear that in order to be of the order of the subdiaconate, one must be celibate. Is that no longer the case?

There are two issues here. Holy Orders as a whole, and the disciplines they currently involve. Holy Orders, we believe, are certainly instituted by Christ, and are doctrine. However, there are disciplinary matters concerning Holy Orders that can change...such as the issue of celibacy, how long priests are to stay at one parish, etc. As I mentioned earlier, the Eastern Catholic Church has long allowed married priests, and there's no problem with that.

See Indulgences: History It is a historical fact that indulgences were authorized by the Pope to raise money to build cathedrals. That is what I am referring to when I talk about selling indulgences. If there were abuses, those abuses were authorized by the Pope.

No, you misunderstand. The Church authorized, among many other things, that charitable donations, since they were a charitable act, could receive an indulgence. (That is, it could act as a penance to take away temporal punishment for our sins.) However, some people in the Church abused this idea, and acted as if one could "buy" an indulgence. It has to do with the intention of the act. As it was easy to confuse, the Church decided to stop that to prevent further abuse.

As I have mentioned before, it is convenient to say that these things are not Oral Tradition. If you can define away any teaching that the church has authoritatively set forth as not being part of Oral Tradition because it disagrees with what is being taught by the Catholic church today, then you have eliminated the problems by definition, but not by historical accuracy. As I pointed out, this is the fallacy of begging the question.

I have a feeling, that if I were to point out where Catholic teaching has changed regarding the items that you mentioned, that you would simply find a way to dismiss it as either being "discipline" instead of "doctrine" or as not being part of the Oral Tradition to begin with.

And again I say, you may find this "convenient," but I still assert that it is the truth. There is not one teaching that has been formally defined as infallible which has changed in all of Church History. The fact that not everything is clearly defined as either infallible or not is no argument against those which have been defined as such.

Catholics as a matter of fact do not feel in any way distressed either by the restrictions, on the one hand, which infallible definitions impose or, on the other hand, by the liberty as to non-defined matters which they enjoy, and they can afford to decline the services of an opponent who is determined at all costs to invent a grievance for them. The objection is based on a mechanical conception of the function of infallible authority, as if this were fairly comparable, for example, to a clock which is supposed to tell us unerringly not only the large divisions of time such as the hours, but also, if it is to be useful as a timekeeper, the minutes and even the seconds. Even if we admit the propriety of the illustration, it is obvious that a clock which records the hours correctly, without indicating the smaller fractions of time, is a very useful instrument, and that it would be foolish to refuse to follow it because it is not provided with a minute or a second hand on the dial. But it is perhaps best to avoid such mechanical illustrations altogether. The Catholic believer who has real faith in the efficiency of Christ's promises will not doubt but that the Holy Ghost Who abides in the Church, and Whose assistance guarantees the infallibility of her definitions, will also provide that any definition that may be necessary or expedient for the safeguarding of Christ's teaching will be given at the opportune moment, and that such definable questions as are left undefined may, for the time being at least, be allowed to remain so without detriment to the faith or morals of the faithful.

Then please set forth the scriptural reasons that prove that Catholic Oral Tradition is not man made. I've already shown how Oral Tradition is not considered to be on par with inspiration per the teachings of the current Cathechism itself. And anything less than inspiration can't be authoritative (Galatians 1:8-12).

I have attempted to do as such, and to show why I disagree that a lack of inspiration means a lack of infallibility, according to Catholic teaching.

From Mr. Cauley's next post:

The implication of this is that individuals are not responsible for properly interpreting and applying God's word to their lives and such cannot be true given the fact that each individual will be judged by God as an individual (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Of course we are judged individually, we all choose whether or not to follow God's word. That has nothing to do with how we receive that word.

If we are to be judged based upon what we do, and if we act based upon what we believe (Matthew 12:35), and if we believe based upon God's word (Romans 10:17),

Notice this verse says faith comes by "hearing," not by "reading."

then it is necessary that we interpret God's word for ourselves as individuals and not allow someone else to tell us what we are supposed to believe about God's word (Acts 17:11).

I agree with all your ifs, it's the "then" I disagree with, and in fact I believe the scriptures directly refute this when they say they are not to be interpreted privately. Certainly I don't believe we should just allow "someone else" to tell us what to believe, that's why I believe God gave us the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, who is authorized to hand down God's Word, both oral and written (as I've tried to show), and that Christ promised He would protect them from error when doing so.

I tried to stick to the most important issues to save time, and I'm afraid that's all I'm going to be able to write today, and probably for a while. Sorry to cut things short, but I just won't be able to keep up without neglecting my home! So I probably won't be able to respond to any posts after this one. Thank you for your time!

Continuing the discussion, Mr. Cauley responded to my Part 1 response in his Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:42 am post on the Preacher's Files. The following is my response to him.

As time permits, I will do my best to respond to what you've said. I just don't want to make any promises I can't keep!

Kevin Cauley wrote:Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium."

In essence, what this statement does, is make Catholic Tradition (with a big "T") immune from criticism of change. How so? Well, if Tradition (with a big "T") ever does change, the Catholic Catechism makes it so that they can simply declare it a tradition (with a little "t") and say, "Well, it was never part of our Tradition (with a big "T") to begin with." It is a very convenient doctrine to have because changes can be made in the big "T" Tradition without actually having to admit to making changes in the big "T" Tradition.

It may seem "convenient" to you, but it simply is what it is to me. If you can find me an example of a teaching that was once seen as unchangeable, and later was changed, that might help.

I have to wonder whether past Catholic doctrines which, at the time were consider big "T" Tradition, were later, after the doctrines were abandoned, decided only to be little "t" traditions. One such example would be the scientific discovery of a heliocentric solar system. The Catholic Church opposed that teaching for many years (and even persecuted some for believing it, such as Galileo) before finally accepting it. Was that not a change in big "T" Tradition?

This is largely an exaggeration that has been perpetuated by people trying to prove that science is incompatible with religion, and that religion tries to stifle science. Suffice it to say, the problem was not the heliocentric theory itself, as Galileo was not the first to propose it, rather, it was the fact that Galileo claimed he had proven it (when he had not), and tried to move it into the theological realm.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

.............................

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.

Another such example is the Vatican Council's "formulation" of the doctrine of infallibility in 1870. After this pronouncement Catholics will tell you that this doctrine was always "assumed" by the church to be true prior to this time all the way back to the days of the apostles. That's exactly the kind of convenient teaching that Catholicism loves. In that way, there has been no change, per se, yet, at the same time, there can be a formal declaration of such a doctrine. Why the need for the formal declaration if there hasn't been any change? It's an example of a "tradition" becoming a "Tradition."

You may find it suspect, but that doesn't prove that the Catholic claim that it was always held is false. If you look at the history of Catholicism, you will find many formal definitions and pronouncements later in history of teachings that were always clearly taught. Why? Often because controversey had arisen over a certain teaching, and to make sure people knew without a doubt what the truth was, the Church officially declared one way or the other so that there would be no question. Up until that point, it had been accepted without question, but then it was questioned, and the Church had to settle the question once and for all. This is how the Church works, and how the major heresies were declared and condemned.

So, while I understand that Catholicism teaches that their "Tradition" never changes, it is really a clever ruse. What they really are saying is that if "Tradition" is ever proved to be wrong, then it must never have been part of "Tradition." Additionally, if Catholicism decides to accept a new doctrine, they can simply proclaim that it was always part of their "Tradition" even though it started as a "tradition." In that way, "Tradition" never changes, but it does so by definition, not by factuality. That is to say, Catholicism defines "Tradition" as "never changing doctrine" and thus, if a doctrine changes it either wasn't "Tradition" to begin with or it always was depending upon the change. This is the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

Again, you may find it "convenient," but you haven't shown an proof that it is begging the question.

From an earlier post:

These traditional teachings then took on an air of authority superior to the scriptures themselves.

This is where we see the Rabbinic traditions as going wrong, as even Catholics don't believe our Oral Tradition is above the scriptures, we believe they are equally authoritative and important, since we believe they are both part of God's Word. We believe that none of the Oral Tradition can contradict the scriptures, and we believe none of it does. I understand you don't agree with that, but I just thought I'd point out what we see as the difference between the Jews and us.

Mr. Cauley's response:I'm sure the Jews would have said something similar. That should cause you great concern. My point was that the Catholic Encyclopedia rightly judged that Jewish tradition became elevated above scripture. That's the danger with accepting the authority of tradition. When the tradition ends up conflicting with the scripture (and they always do), the tradition always wins out and the scripture always takes second place.

This is full of assumptions. If it was man made tradition, certainly there would be great concern. But as I'm convinced our Tradition is given and protected by God, I'm not worried in the least. I disagree that our Tradition conflicts with scripture.

I'm sure the Jews had "explanations" for why Jesus was wrong about His analysis as well, but the "explanation" only reinforces the point that tradition has been elevated above scripture to begin with. That's exactly what has happened with Catholicism. One such example is the "explanation" that Catholicism offers for why it is acceptable to call religious leaders "fathers" when Jesus clearly said not to do such in Matthew 23:9. Here is a clear conflict between Catholic Tradition and scripture. What has won out? Not scripture, but tradition.

No faithful Catholic will ever say Jesus was wrong, and they will never say the scriptures were wrong. In our understanding, there is no conflict at all. And while your understanding may seem right to you, I have to wonder by what authority you claim your interpretation to be the correct one?

Actually, the Catholic Catechism is conflicted on this point. Consider the following two statements:

"The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."

In the very next paragraph it says:

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."

It's a rather convenient doctrine to say that the entire church has been entrusted with God's word, but that "authentic interpretation of the Word of God" is entrusted to the living teaching office alone. So, the church has the word, but can't interpret it. If you can't interpret it, then how can you really have it? This is another convenient teaching that allows Catholicism to both have a "fixed" set of teaching (i.e. what the church has) while allowing changes as the papacy sees fit (what the office of the living teaching says scripture says). Quite deceptive.

I'm not sure what you see as the problem in the two texts you quoted? We have the teachings of Christ for the Church, which the teaching office is in charge of preserving and interpreting correctly. It's like we have the laws of our nation, which government officials and particular branches are in charge of properly interpreting for the people. The pope does not change anything. There's nothing deceptive about it...it's very easy to claim that, but I haven't seen any proof. (And I don't mean from you, I mean from the time I started investigating Catholicism to try and disprove it, until now. I didn't start out wanting to be Catholic, you know.)

You've now misrepresented me. I never said that Jesus was opposed to all tradition. What I said was:

"Jesus was opposed to the traditions of men becoming the strainer through which scripture was understood."

It certainly wasn't intentional, I apologize for mistating your position. I agree with this.

This is exactly what Catholicism does. It strains scripture through the traditions of men. I understand that Catholicism claims them to be God's tradition, but again, that must be proved, not assumed.

This, of course, I disagree with. And I know nothing I say will convince you otherwise, and it's not my intention to do so.

This is exactly what is in contention. I understand that Catholics believe that THEIR tradition is sanctioned by God and thereby NOT human tradition. However, it's one thing to SAY that; it's an entirely different thing to prove that. That's where Catholicism falls far short.

So you say, and I disagree. I agree, one shouldn't just accept such a claim without proof. I've posted the scriptures that I believe show Christ gave the apostles tradition, who passed that on, and expected it to be followed. I haven't seen any scripture saying that scripture alone is sufficient. I have seen historical proof, especially how the Bible came about. I see in the scriptures that a Church was instituted, not a book. I see the Church called "the pillar and ground of truth," not a book. So, personally, I have seen proof, and I have tried to provide explanations of that as best I can.

I'll agree with you that there was apostolic revelation outside of written revelation in the first century. Where we disagree, however, is that this non-written public revelation was entrusted to the church. It was not. In fact, the main impetus of the early church was to confirm the written revelation and ferret out the oral tradition, just the opposite of what Catholicism claims. Such makes suspect all of Catholic oral tradition.

I don't find this anywhere in the scriptures, quite the opposite.

The very fact of the matter is that early in the 2nd century A.D. the written messages of the apostles were already being read as scripture among the churches. We know that they were read as scripture when they were originally delivered to the early churches, for so the writings themselves say (Colossians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:27). It is a myth, however, to say that the 1st and 2nd century churches didn't have the New Testament. Consider "The Formation of the New Testament Canon." History shows that they actually did and that they distinguished such teachings from the mere writings/traditions of men.

By the middle to end of the second century, you actually have writings that are listing the books of the New Testament as being part of the apostles inspired writings. One such example is the Muratorium Fragment. There is little discussion, if any, to authoritative tradition at this time. Why would that be? Mainly because they were not concerned with oral tradition as they were with inspired written documents.

My answer would be because there was no question about what that tradition was, it was very much agreed upon. It was a bit later that major heresies arose (arianism, pelagianism, nestorianism, etc), which challenged Sacred Tradition. Because of the Church's God-given authority, though, they were able to settle the matters. Just like with scriptures, though there were certainly texts they agreed were inspired, there were also arguments over other texts and whether or not they were inspired, and because of the Church's authority, they were able to settle the matter once and for all.

I probably won't be able to keep going back and forth, as I'm sure it could last forever! I'll respond to the other posts that have already been written, but beyond that I'm afraid I may have to refrain.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Haven't we all been told time and time again that Galileo was condemned for proving the heliocentric theory, since the big bad mean ol' Church was anti-science and didn't want people to know the truth? Lol...that's what I was taught, anyway! And you know, I guess people tend to think if something is repeated enough, it must be true! So it's amazing to me when self-proclaimed skeptics buy things like this without even being skeptical about whether or not they have the real story...they've heard the same thing all their lives, so it MUST be true! But I don't blame them, we often don't realize that we've never actually made sure things are true, it's easy to just accept something without checking out the facts, especially when we've heard it repeated dozens of times without question.

Well, the facts are this. It was not the heliocetricism that was the problem, it was Galileo's arrogance and broken promises that got him in trouble.

He was asked to write a fair book portraying both ideas (heliocentricism, geocentricism, and the pope's personal view that perhaps the heavenly bodies move in ways that are not understood on Earth.) Well...he basically wrote the book in a discussion format, with one propenent of geocentrism, one propenent of heliocentrism, and an interested bystander...the person talking about the geocentric view, and stating the Pope's view he named "Simplicius," an obvious insult. Simplicius was portrayed as slow witted and stupid, while the proponent of Heliocentrism was quick witted and clever. The book was completely one-sided, and completely NOT what he promised he would write. This is why he got in trouble, not because he was a propenent of heliocentrism.

It's also interesting to note that there were other scientists (including Kepler) who were openly teaching Heliocentrism with no problem.But all this is in this article, which, by the way, was written by a non-Catholic.

It's really quite clear historically that the Church did not have a problem with science, not in the least, some of the most important scientific discoveries were made by priests and monks. There's no reason to be afraid of science, as it is merely in search of truth. This article puts it best, I think:

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 1.

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

This same view was also espoused by Cardinal Bellarmini during the Galileo controversy:"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated."

Science and religion are certainly not incompatible, and we shouldn't be afraid to explore both.

First, there is no doubt that the apostles expected first century (and beyond) believers to accept their words as gospel truth. Acts 2:42 states, "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." We have an obligation today to continue in the apostles' doctrine as well. But notice this: the obligation is to continue in the APOSTLES' doctrine, not what someone else SAYS to be the apostles' doctrine. The only way to KNOW what the apostles' doctrine was, is to go back to the things that the apostles themselves said and wrote. This entails acknowledging the source documents as authoritative, but not necessarily secondary sources.

Not if you believe God promised he would give us a Church through which he would protect both oral and written doctrine and preserve it throughout time. A simple look at writings of the Early Church and the Church today on matters such as the Eucharist, the Trinity, Baptism, Communion of Saints, etc, will show the beliefs are the same now as they were then.

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Second, we must remember that during the first century, men and women were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak the gospel message. Jesus said to the apostles in John 16:13 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." Much of the inspired teaching that occurred in New Testament times was oral in nature. Jesus taught the apostles orally. The apostles, in turn, taught the first Christians orally. It wasn't very long, however, before the inspired began to write down their Holy Spirit given messages to be preserved for all Christians everywhere. However, the quality of being inspired isn't the same as receiving and delivering tradition. Inspiration can't be wrong; one's uninspired reception and delivery of tradition CAN be wrong. Herein lies the difference. Yes, individuals were expected to obey apostles and any other individuals who could PROVE they were inspired of God. But once inspiration ceased, the obligation to accept tradition as authoritative ceased as well.

Catholics believe the apostles did have a special kind of insipiration, one that was very individual and allowed them to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals, and to receive revelation directly from God and share it, and that this particular kind of inspiration was unique to them. But we also believe God promised the Church as a whole, after the full deposit of faith had been given to the apostles and preached, would be protected by the Holy Spirit in preserving that which the apostles teached once and for all.

Third, there is no evidence to suggest that the apostles wanted men to believe a succession of church leaders over the inspired words that they spake and wrote. In fact, Paul made it clear that he expected no one to believe anything less than what he himself directly received from the Lord. In Galatians 1:11,12 he wrote, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." We can understand Paul to say here that the message he taught was given to him directly by God and that he held no expectation for anyone to believe anything less than that. His teaching and preaching wasn't "after man" nor did he "receive it of man" nor was he "taught it" by man. The meaning is clear; Christians have no obligation to respect such teaching when it does not contain authority that is directly from God Himself.

We agree! But again, we believe that what "he himself directly received from the Lord" IS what the Church preserved and has passed on and teaches orally and through scripture. It is not of man, it is of God, and therefore we absolutely agree with this and believe ourselves to be following it.

Finally, we can be confident that in these documents they recorded everything that they taught orally.

...this truth is not limited to the Bible, but also includes prophetic and apostolic proclamation and oral tradition, as well as teaching not included in the Bible itself, as seen in the following biblical passages (RSV):

Mark 4:33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them . . .

In other words, by implication, many parables are not recorded in Scripture.

Mark 6:34 . . . he began to teach them many things.

None of these "many things" are recorded here.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

Perhaps these many things were spoken during His post-Resurrection appearances alluded to in Acts 1:2-3. Very few of these teachings are recorded, and those which are contain only minimal detail.

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Paul told Timothy that everything that he needed to know to be a faithful man of God was found in the scriptures ( 2 Timothy 3:15,16).

John Henry Newman has this to say about that passage, which explains the Catholic view well:

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

...................

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

Peter said that everything that the Christian needed for life and godliness they had through the knowledge of Jesus Christ ( 2 Peter 1:3). We know that Jesus promised that His words would never pass away ( Matthew 24:35).

Neither of these verses contradict the idea that the Word of God is both oral and written, we absolutely agree all we need to live a Christian life was given by Christ, and we agree His Words will never pass away. We just have a different definition of what "His Words" are.

When we couple these facts with the truth that God always keep his promises ( Hebrews 6:17,18), we have irrefutable evidence that the scriptures are all that we need in order to live the kind of lives that God wants us to live today.

I only see one verse you quoted that mentions scripture, and it says it's profitable, not sufficient, and it is referring to Old Testament scriptures, as that is all they had at the time. The other verses are as easily applied to the Word of God as oral and written.

I suppose the crux of the matter is, while you believe the authority and tradition the apostles had passed away, we believe it was passed down, and necessarily so.

We believe Christ promised us a Church to make sure that the teachings would be protected:

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

Another quote from Newman, which I think explains the problem of having scriptures without an authority to interpret them correctly:

"Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."

Anyway, thanks for inviting me to read your series of articles. I have to say, though, that there was nothing I read that I hadn't heard before, and nothing I hadn't previously considered. But I appreciate the effort.

About Me

Stephanie

Austin, Texas, United States

Here's my life in a nutshell - I was raised in the Church of Christ, met a French Catholic guy online in my teens, tried to convert him to the Church of Christ, and-SURPRISE!-ended up converting myself to Catholicism. We ran off to France and got married, came back to the states, I got a degree in English, he got a degree in Computer Science, he got a job, and I am now happily living life as a Catholic housewife.